slimtoken.inspect_budget

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, does not modify the body, and details what it counts and reports. This is solid transparency for an inspection tool, though it omits specifics like return format or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read-only token-budget inspection', and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the tool's core behavior without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential operational semantics: what it inspects, what it reports, and its side-effect-free nature. It does not elaborate on input format normalization or parameter details, but for a read-only inspection tool, the provided context is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has only 17% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains the role of 'messages', 'system', 'tools', and 'token_budget' through the counting and headroom reporting, but it does not clarify 'format' (beyond schema enum) or 'keep_last', leaving gaps for those parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('token-budget'), and enumerates the exact outputs (counts, headroom, pruner decision). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its read-only inspection nature, contrasting with the more action-oriented siblings like optimize_messages and prune_context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify the body', signaling that this is for inspection, not modification. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of the highest score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.